The meaning of "nationalism"

[harjit]

I always viewed nationalism to be a good thing, a good word, until I encountered the racist and xenophobic lunacy at places like Stormfront.

It is time to take back that word.


In Canada, being nationalistic or patriotic generally implies being fairly liberal and anti-American. It has absolutely no bearing on race. Such Canadians typically find racism abhorrent (in fact racism is one of the reasons they want to distance themselves from the U.S.)


Canadian Francophone nationalism, or Quebec separatism, too has nothing to do with racism. The separatist parties seem more than happy to bring in Francophones from the Middle East and Haiti to bolster there numbers and strength. Even if we opposed it, we grew up in the 1970s and 1980s perceiving it as a benign left-wing liberal movement (sort of like the way we perceived communism, well-intentioned but a bad idea), not an evil mean-spirited right-wing bigoted one.


Indian nationalism generally implies anti-imperialism and anti-racism (this is as opposed to Hindu nationalism, which tends to be prejudiced against Muslims and Sikhs). Such people tend to consider themselves friendly with liberals all around the world, and would have no issues with non-exploitative Westerners living in India, or hippies in Goa. If anything they would probably be quite eager to meet such people for dinner and discussions.


In Japan, nationalism means taking more pride in the nation. We are talking about a country where the very flag and national anthem are viewed as politically incorrect because they may offend the Chinese and Koreans (who still gripe about WWII). I am always amazed at the lack of patriotism in the Japanese. So any journalist or politician who promotes even a normal level of patriotism is described as a nationalist.

In that sense the current Japanese Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, is a renowned nationalist. When he assumed power the racists over at the Phora were joyous, but they misunderstand what nationalism means. They seem to think it is their own brand of bigotry. In fact Abe is very far from that. I finally found some English excerpts from his book "Toward a Beautiful Nation" (Utsukushii Kuni e), at a Morgan Stanley research site of all places.

(He is also known in Japan for being an Indophile, which also gets touched upon).

The most surprising element in Abe’s book is his endorsement of an activist policy seeking immigrants for Japan. Abe says, “We should aim for a country that is seen by people around the world as a place where they want to come to work, want to invest, in short a country that gives everyone a chance. To those who resonate with Japan’s national character and ideals, to those who wish to educate their children here, or to those who want to be Japanese, we should open our doors wide. Moreover, we should do this because it will contribute to the dynamism of Japan” (p. 158). Later on the same page he points specifically to India as a “new Asian partner” for Japan.

http://www.morganstanley.com/views/gef/archive/2006/20060809-Wed.html

Anyway, the upshot of this is that we need to restore "nationalism" to its original meaning without the racist aspect.

[Helios Panoptes]

Anyway, the upshot of this is that we need to restore "nationalism" to its original meaning without the racist aspect.

As I understand the matter, though they are often used interchangeably in common speech, a distinction must be drawn between a state and a nation. The former is a sovereign political entity, whereas the latter is an ethnocultural community. This is why there can be such a thing as the Cherokee nation and a Chechen nationalist movement.

[Jake Featherston]

(He is also known in Japan for being an Indophile, which also gets touched upon).

This actually counts as a point in favor of the view of his following in the footsteps of the WW2 era militarists, as people in that ideological millieu were always very pro-India, and saw the Indian nation as a logical ally against both China and the West.

[Holly]

I always viewed nationalism to be a good thing, a good word, until I encountered the racist and xenophobic lunacy at places like Stormfront.

Nationalism is a very good thing but it first it takes a nation to be proud of.
Right now we whites do not quite have that as our so called "leaders" have sold our inheritance down the drain for the sake of a multi culture agenda to appease jews among other things.
It is completly unnatural and wil lnot stand and when we are masters of our destinys and future in our own homelands then you will see rightful nationalism in the west [and by the way you of the east are free to have you own].

In that sense the current Japanese Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, is a renowned nationalist. When he assumed power the racists over at the Phora were joyous, but they misunderstand what nationalism means. They seem to think it is their own brand of bigotry. In fact Abe is very far from that. I finally found some English excerpts from his book "Toward a Beautiful Nation" (Utsukushii Kuni e), at a Morgan Stanley research site of all places.

No meaning to that, very easy to say in a nearly racially pure island country not overrun and invaded by racial and religous forigners and enemys.
Let us see open minded Japan take on 5 million jabbering beaners and 3 million rag heads praying to mecca 14 times a day and then lets see how open he will be then. Let us see his countrys crime rate rocket up, let us see his taxpayers paying for their health and schooling, let us see his native population the subject of crime, disrespekt and abuse and see if he wants to slam shut that open door then.
Nonesense and you beleive that like a child as proof of what ? Surely you must know that talk is cheap .. ? No large groups of foreign minoritys are going to go to island Japan in waves.


Anyway, the upshot of this is that we need to restore "nationalism" to its original meaning without the racist aspect.

Healthy, natural nationalism is not possible with multi culture, at all.
This is intended, and the clannish nature of all you people make that certain. So then you are either saying that the foreign mostly black and brown people who have invaded the west by immigration and birth should blend in to us .... Or more likely your idea is us to blend to you, and then we can get along fine hmmm
For only when large groups of people with common language, religion, history, heritage and culture is it possible to have healthy nationalism, otherwise it will be as fake and useful as lipstick on a dog - And we see the living proof of that evry where we look. The problem is YOU [though I personally think you are Ok] and the reason and cause of Stormfront and people like me is YOU being in our lands where you DO NOT belong.
The problem will not be easy to solve it and before there will be any pleasure for any of us, it will take a lot of pain but no, forget about your idea of nationalism, that is a red flag and a personal insult to me and my white ancestors who made the western world what it is.
It is not your inheritance, it is mine.

Those are my thoughts.

[Winston]

Any definition of nationalism which includes multiracialism is a phoney nationalism.

[shanemac]

When Abe talks of welcoming immigrants to Japan he's talking in the thousands... manageable numbers. The Japanese would probably accept some people with skills who would bring a net benefit to Japan, but in such small numbers that they had no effect on Japanese society at large.

This is vastly different to the racial and national suicide that white countries have been engaged in for the last 40 years.

Canadians generally make me sick. They have that air of moral superiority about them, like they've got it all worked out, and maybe if you watched a few more Michael Moore documentaries, you might get it too man.

[harjit]

Nationalism is a very good thing but it first it takes a nation to be proud of.
Right now we whites do not quite have that as our so called "leaders" have sold our inheritance down the drain for the sake of a multi culture agenda to appease jews among other things.
It is completly unnatural and wil lnot stand and when we are masters of our destinys and future in our own homelands then you will see rightful nationalism in the west [and by the way you of the east are free to have you own].
I am not especially interested in having my own ethnic nationalism.

In real life I have argued on many occasions with ethnocentric Indian people.

No meaning to that, very easy to say in a nearly racially pure island country not overrun and invaded by racial and religous forigners and enemys.
Let us see open minded Japan take on 5 million jabbering beaners and 3 million rag heads praying to mecca 14 times a day and then lets see how open he will be then. Let us see his countrys crime rate rocket up, let us see his taxpayers paying for their health and schooling, let us see his native population the subject of crime, disrespekt and abuse and see if he wants to slam shut that open door then.
Nonesense and you beleive that like a child as proof of what ? Surely you must know that talk is cheap .. ? No large groups of foreign minoritys are going to go to island Japan in waves.
It is not conclusive proof that Japan will be multicultural, just an example of a leader who can be nationalist and not be like a Stormfronter.

Healthy, natural nationalism is not possible with multi culture, at all.
This is intended, and the clannish nature of all you people make that certain. So then you are either saying that the foreign mostly black and brown people who have invaded the west by immigration and birth should blend in to us .... Or more likely your idea is us to blend to you, and then we can get along fine hmmm
For only when large groups of people with common language, religion, history, heritage and culture is it possible to have healthy nationalism, otherwise it will be as fake and useful as lipstick on a dog - And we see the living proof of that evry where we look. The problem is YOU [though I personally think you are Ok] and the reason and cause of Stormfront and people like me is YOU being in our lands where you DO NOT belong.
The problem will not be easy to solve it and before there will be any pleasure for any of us, it will take a lot of pain but no, forget about your idea of nationalism, that is a red flag and a personal insult to me and my white ancestors who made the western world what it is.
It is not your inheritance, it is mine.
I get along perfectly fine in Canada. I like the culture and social environment very much.

I also live in Japan most of the year, and it is the same thing. I get along fine with my Japanese mother-in-law (and with my father-in-law, until he passed away last year). My business activities involve Japan and North America (and possibly India in the future).

If for some reason the white majority decided that Canada should be a "white" country and made this a priority agenda, life would not be very enjoyable. I would simply conclude that the society was not ready for multiculturalism, and look for ways to leave.

Same thing for Japan.

Whether any of this will happen during my lifetime or not is something I cannot predict.

But right now, honestly speaking, someone with racialist views would find life in Canada much tougher and unwelcoming than would an assimilated non-white.

[harjit]

Canadians generally make me sick. They have that air of moral superiority about them, like they've got it all worked out, and maybe if you watched a few more Michael Moore documentaries, you might get it too man.
LOL, do you mean the ones you've met in Japan?

[shanemac]

LOL, do you mean the ones you've met in Japan?

Yeah, mostly :)

[<access denied>]

Canadian ethnocentrists might not understand that "White American" is an ethnic group, not a "race." There is only the ARYAN RACE, which must unite for geopolitical reasons (especially when it is only 8% of the world population). The bourgeois nationalists who promote fighting between Canadians and Americans, British and French, etc., are irrelevant fossils. "Nationalism" which does not give practical, BIOLOGICAL benefit to the ethnos is not nationalism but DEMAGOGY.

[Winston]

I am not especially interested in having my own ethnic nationalism.

In real life I have argued on many occasions with ethnocentric Indian people.


It is not conclusive proof that Japan will be multicultural, just an example of a leader who can be nationalist and not be like a Stormfronter.
There is nothing stormfrontish about wishing to retain your national identity, a requirement of which is to retain racial identity.


I get along perfectly fine in Canada. I like the culture and social environment very much.

Of course you do. You are benefiting from the trappings of a white-built society which you don't have in India. Multiculturalism is in your interests. It is to you what racialism is to us. I'm sure if every slum dweller got an invite to stay in a mansion they would become a staunch advocate for whatever it takes to keep them there.


I also live in Japan most of the year, and it is the same thing. I get along fine with my Japanese mother-in-law (and with my father-in-law, until he passed away last year). My business activities involve Japan and North America (and possibly India in the future).

If for some reason the white majority decided that Canada should be a "white" country and made this a priority agenda, life would not be very enjoyable. I would simply conclude that the society was not ready for multiculturalism, and look for ways to leave.

You say "ready", like multiculturalism is sitting there waiting for everyone to become enlightened to it's magnificence and inevitability.


Same thing for Japan.

Whether any of this will happen during my lifetime or not is something I cannot predict.

But right now, honestly speaking, someone with racialist views would find life in Canada much tougher and unwelcoming than would an assimilated non-white.
Multiculturalism was a mistake which everyone will realise given time. People realise the mistake at different rates depending on many factors.

[harjit]

Of course you do. You are benefiting from the trappings of a white-built society which you don't have in India. Multiculturalism is in your interests. It is to you what racialism is to us. I'm sure if every slum dweller got an invite to stay in a mansion they would become a staunch advocate for whatever it takes to keep them there.
It really has nothing to do with that, I just dislike prejudice and discrimination based on factors a person has no control over.

You cast aspersions on me, projecting your own atavistic short-sighted mean-spiritedness, but are incorrect. (Not to mention, you basically called me a parasite)

For example, by your standards, it would be beneficial for my relatives in India for caste discrimination to be alive and well, as well as Hindu supremacy, being upper-caste Hindus.

However I would oppose those things because I don't view such exploitative benefits as being "good".

There are more than enough white people in your country who would say the same thing. Do you believe them and not me?

[Hakluyt]

In Canada, being nationalistic or patriotic generally implies being fairly liberal and anti-American. It has absolutely no bearing on race. Such Canadians typically find racism abhorrent (in fact racism is one of the reasons they want to distance themselves from the U.S.)
'Nationalist' originally described someone who wanted independence from Britain and the eschewing of British identity - still a controversial position today. The founder of modern Canadian Nationalism is generally seen as Mackenzie King and his civil service cabal (Norman Robertson, O.D. Skelton). However, the progenitors of this tabula rasa approach to nation-building, which led directly to where we are today politically, were some of the most racist and anti-Semitic men of their generation anywhere in the world.

He met with Adolf Hitler who, he remarked in his journal, came across as "a reasonable and caring man ... who might be thought of as one of the saviors of the world." Telling a Jewish delegation that Kristallnacht "might turn out to be a blessing," he refused to allow Jewish refugees who were attempting to leave Nazi Germany entry into Canada.

...

When asked how many Jews would be allowed to immigrate immediately after World War II, one of King's civil servants, Frederick Charles Blair, famously quipped that "none is too many". While it might be tempting to blame Blair, it was King who said he wanted to "keep this part of the continent free from unrest and from too great an intermixture of foreign strains of blood."

Knowles, Valerie. Strangers at Our Gates: Canadian Immigration and Immigration Policy, 1540-1997, (Toronto: Dundurn, 1997)

At any rate, if nationalists have any positive sentiment about their country at all (distinguished from negative sentiment toward the US), it is still by default an association with something Anglo-celtic/French Canadian at its foundations; this association would be lost if those foundations were removed. Often people aren't conscious of what makes them feel the way they do until they've lost it. Yes harjit, that includes you - I don't question any immigrant who claims they feel something positive about Canada, but it is still a feeling about a place with ethnic roots that would be fundamentally different without them.

As far as anti-Americanism, my view is that today's Canadian leftists are just as Americanised as the rightists. The idea that all human beings are interchangeable and that a nation is little more than a pasture for us to graze and consume is the essence of capitalistic Americanism.

Canadian Francophone nationalism, or Quebec separatism, too has nothing to do with racism. The separatist parties seem more than happy to bring in Francophones from the Middle East and Haiti to bolster there numbers and strength. Even if we opposed it, we grew up in the 1970s and 1980s perceiving it as a benign left-wing liberal movement (sort of like the way we perceived communism, well-intentioned but a bad idea), not an evil mean-spirited right-wing bigoted one.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. We've read about surveys only last month suggesting 1/3 of Quebecois self-identify as racist. Though its leadership gives lip service to traditional leftist policies, the Bloc Quebecois was founded entirely by members of the Quebec wing of the Conservative Party. Provincially, the Parti Quebecois replaced the conservative Union National. The image they try to project is merely a strategy to hold on to the younger generation, who would otherwise identify with the liberal English-speaking world.

[Hakluyt]

There is nothing stormfrontish about wishing to retain your national identity, a requirement of which is to retain racial identity.
I disagree with this. Racial identity dilutes national identity and sets a precedent for economic multiculturalism - if all whites are the same, why not humans?

[harjit]

At any rate, if nationalists have any positive sentiment about their country at all (distinguished from negative sentiment toward the US), it is still by default an association with something Anglo-celtic/French Canadian at its foundations; this association would be lost if those foundations were removed. Often people aren't conscious of what makes them feel the way they do until they've lost it. Yes harjit, that includes you - I don't question any immigrant who claims they feel something positive about Canada, but it is still a feeling about a place with ethnic roots that would be fundamentally different without them.

Sure, that is probably the case. But it is just a difference in degree, depending on how many generations back you go. In that sense a second-generation Italian wouldn't be very different from me. Not that it matters in real life, but to the racialist crowd here race is the only thing around which any of this hinges.

As far as anti-Americanism, my view is that today's Canadian leftists are just as Americanised as the rightists. The idea that all human beings are interchangeable and that a nation is little more than a pasture for us to graze and consume is the essence of capitalistic Americanism.
The philosophical foundations may overlap but people are seldom thinking about that. They are more focused on the issues where we differ from the USA: universal health care, crime rates, Iraq, capital punishment.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. We've read about surveys only last month suggesting 1/3 of Quebecois self-identify as racist. Though its leadership gives lip service to traditional leftist policies, the Bloc Quebecois was founded entirely by members of the Quebec wing of the Conservative Party. Provincially, the Parti Quebecois replaced the conservative Union National. The image they try to project is merely a strategy to hold on to the younger generation, who would otherwise identify with the liberal English-speaking world.
Individuals all have their beliefs but it is not a movement pegged as racist. And in this day and age anything controversial seems to (ridiculously, I may add) get called racist. It is certainly on the whole a non-racist movement, far more than a racist movement.

[Steppenwolf]

I like it how rightists support nationalism: a creation of the bourgeoisie to justify, not having the 'divine rights' of monarchs, their ruling of the state.

[Lieutenant William Bligh]

Indian nationalism generally implies anti-imperialism and anti-racism (this is as opposed to Hindu nationalism, which tends to be prejudiced against Muslims and Sikhs). Such people tend to consider themselves friendly with liberals all around the world, and would have no issues with non-exploitative Westerners living in India, or hippies in Goa. If anything they would probably be quite eager to meet such people for dinner and discussions.

What a load of...only the most gullible would fall for this. Indian Nationalism is "Indian." Non-exploitive Westerners. Well that's cute. I have no issue, then with non-exploitive invaders of European Nations. What a joke.

[Hakluyt]

Sure, that is probably the case. But it is just a difference in degree, depending on how many generations back you go. In that sense a second-generation Italian wouldn't be very different from me. Not that it matters in real life, but to the racialist crowd here race is the only thing around which any of this hinges.
I agree, it's the same for an Italian. I personally wouldn't want this country to become Italian any more than I'd want it to become Punjabi.

The philosophical foundations may overlap but people are seldom thinking about that. They are more focused on the issues where we differ from the USA: universal health care, crime rates, Iraq, capital punishment.
My point is that these are debates taking place within a larger Americanised mindset. It's ridiculous to claim to be anti-American when one is in many ways more American than the Americans themselves are today.

Individuals all have their beliefs but it is not a movement pegged as racist. And in this day and age anything controversial seems to (ridiculously, I may add) get called racist. It is certainly on the whole a non-racist movement, far more than a racist movement.
I agree, it's not racist in the same sense that any nationalist movement is aracial at the core. What I'm saying is that the individuals involved are (to a larger degree than commonly imagined) independently racist, as were Mackenzie King and his administration, despite conducting a perfectly aracial political programme.

[Galdr]

Nationalism is a implementation to protect or represent a nationhood through the government in my humble opinion.

When you understand that race is apart of culture there really is no conflict in understanding how modern nationalists come up with their own conceptions.

[Lieutenant William Bligh]

Nationalism is a implementation to protect or represent a nationhood through the government in my humble opinion.

When you understand that race is apart of culture there really is no conflict in understanding how modern nationalists come up with their own conceptions.

That is exactly what I feel is so unfair and enraging about this "non-racist Nationalism."

Canada is not an entho-Nationalist state, while Nations like Indian and Pakistan certainly are. So in Harjits case he gets to eat one's cake and have it too
while your average White Canadian, American and even White European does not.

He gets an ethno-Nationalism protected from the slur of racism, while a White Canadian is not allowed his ethno-state.

[Francis]

As I understand the matter, though they are often used interchangeably in common speech, a distinction must be drawn between a state and a nation. The former is a sovereign political entity, whereas the latter is an ethnocultural community. This is why there can be such a thing as the Cherokee nation and a Chechen nationalist movement.

That is an important point, oft overlooked, Nationalism has more than one meaning.

Another point that amuses me, part of which arises in this thread is that "Nationalism", in the sense of racial nationalism, is allegedly a right wing tool supported by the bourgeois, and yet, at the same time, the white nationalist supporter, is disparagingly classed as being predominately an idiot of the working classes.

It's not really relevant to anything, as both sets of comments are usually used as a veiled attempt to insult, I just find the contradiction amusing.

Finally, the other point that I notice is this attributing things to Stormfront.

Stormfront is a messageboard, nothing more, nothing less, it is not a mouth piece for Nationalism, nor even representative of Nationalism, it is merely a website, which has on its servers software that facilitates discussions between a number of people, many of whom may indeed be Nationalist (although also many who are not) who make up less that a single percent of all Nationalists on the planet.

[harjit]

That is exactly what I feel is so unfair and enraging about this "non-racist Nationalism."

Canada is not an entho-Nationalist state, while Nations like Indian and Pakistan certainly are. So in Harjits case he gets to eat one's cake and have it too
while your average White Canadian, American and even White European does not.

He gets an ethno-Nationalism protected from the slur of racism, while a White Canadian is not allowed his ethno-state.
I have been to India several times.

Among urban educated people there (pretty much the only kind of people I interact much with, just by default), the dominant ethic is surprisingly similar to the politically-correct liberalism you find in the West. The recent PC word for Dalits, for example, is "scheduled castes", and there are all kinds of AA-type programs for them.

It is also the same in Japan. It is as if there is a common thread that runs through the entire world. All societies have the potential to be that way.

You would be justified in saying accusing me of double-standards if I was an ethno-nationalist for my race but opposed it in European peoples. However I am not an ethno-nationalist for my race. In two years on these boards I have been accused of many things but that is not one of them.

[harjit]

Another point that amuses me, part of which arises in this thread is that "Nationalism", in the sense of racial nationalism, is allegedly a right wing tool supported by the bourgeois, and yet, at the same time, the white nationalist supporter, is disparagingly classed as being predominately an idiot of the working classes.
Who said this?

Finally, the other point that I notice is this attributing things to Stormfront.

Stormfront is a messageboard, nothing more, nothing less, it is not a mouth piece for Nationalism, nor even representative of Nationalism, it is merely a website, which has on its servers software that facilitates discussions between a number of people, many of whom may indeed be Nationalist (although also many who are not) who make up less that a single percent of all Nationalists on the planet.
I meant racial nationalism on the whole, since it is a frequent discussion topic here.

lol, true, there was no need to bring SF into it.

[Burrhus]

As I understand the matter, though they are often used interchangeably in common speech, a distinction must be drawn between a state and a nation. The former is a sovereign political entity, whereas the latter is an ethnocultural community. This is why there can be such a thing as the Cherokee nation and a Chechen nationalist movement.

Nationalism is the belief that the state and the nation should be co-terminus.

[Francis]

Who said this?

There was at least one bourgeois dig in this thread, and plenty more across the forum, and the same with the inbred white trash idiot comments.

The ills of the White Nationalist seems to depend on what position the observer is observing from.

To many a "leftist" the WN is right wing bourgeois, and to the "right winger" he is a ignorant prole.

The truth is White Nationalists come from all strands of society, so can be either of the above, or neither.

It just amuses me, especially when so frequently such 'attacks', for want of a better word, come from those arguing about labels.

As I say, it's not even an issue to me, just a thing that gives me the occasional wry smile, when I read it.


I meant racial nationalism on the whole, since it is a frequent discussion topic here.

It is one of those issues, where we have to many meanings to to few words, Nationalism can mean so many things, and so it can get confusing, I don't dispute that, and for any Nationalists, of one stripe or another I can fully understand their displeasure at the 'misuse' of their label.

I think in this respect that the racial Nationalist has won out, whether he wanted to or not, and that in certain places, and certain fields, the name will always be associated with him.

Besides, like most words, even if it's "reclaimed" another word takes it's place.

There's been quite a fashion in the last 30 years or so, of trying to 'reclaim' words, but none of it really makes much difference, as words are only a tool, and there are always other tools to use, if a person is so inclined, and it's the inclination, the desire, and the determination, that is really the core of the issue.

The same word can be a lethal weapon, or an act of jest, depending on who deploys it, and how, it's the people behind words that count, and their motivation, rather than the black and white characters we see on a webpage, or the audible sounds we hear, floating around in the ether.

lol, true, there was no need to bring SF into it.

Meh, SF has become a lazy word, a piece of shorthand that so many use these days, I guess a few years from now the very word Stormfront might be being argued over, in a thread just like this.

[Sakura]

I fully agree with Harjit, Nationalism is not racist. I am a proud Japanese Nationalist, by the way, but I do not belive that Japan is superior to China, Korea, etc.

and the reason and cause of Stormfront and people like me is YOU being in our lands where you DO NOT belong.


Okay then, Holly, where does Harjit belong? Are you forgetting your history? Your country killed thousands of American Indians for your "Manifest Destiny". By the Logic of Racial Nationalism, every single European in the U.S., Canada, etc. should go back to whatever European Nation they came from.

[harjit]

Meh, SF has become a lazy word, a piece of shorthand that so many use these days, I guess a few years from now the very word Stormfront might be being argued over, in a thread just like this.
LP, wouldn't it be something if a particular strand of racial nationalism called "Stormfrontism" took root in political parlance? :)

[Holly]

I am not especially interested in having my own ethnic nationalism.

In real life I have argued on many occasions with ethnocentric Indian people.


It is not conclusive proof that Japan will be multicultural, just an example of a leader who can be nationalist and not be like a Stormfronter.

Well Ok you barely argued against my points so I will not say them again, only to repeat that Japan of all places has no lessons for us.


I get along perfectly fine in Canada. I like the culture and social environment very much.

Yes I bet that you do.


If for some reason the white majority decided that Canada should be a "white" country and made this a priority agenda, life would not be very enjoyable.

For you and your kind, of course it would not be. But your heart is in your homeland, that is where you belong.

I would simply conclude that the society was not ready for multiculturalism, and look for ways to leave.

I think ways would not be lacking in that case.

Whether any of this will happen during my lifetime or not is something I cannot predict.

You hope not, I hope so. I work to make it happen so far in little ways every day. I do not wish to make dark foreigners welcome, I would like them to know they have no affairs in a white homeland, to visit is fine.

But right now, honestly speaking, someone with racialist views would find life in Canada much tougher and unwelcoming than would an assimilated non-white.

That may be true, and sad that so many whites in Canada have very low racial and national pride, there are people with good heart I know who are working to turn it around. It is hard for me to say what in Canadas past has made it want to bend over so far for minority intrest before thier own, I would like to study this more. Maybe being dominated by the Crown so long has gave them a complex of some sorts.

[Francis]

LP, wouldn't it be something if a particular strand of racial nationalism called "Stormfrontism" took root in political parlance? :)

I think it's half way there to be honest, at least in certain circles.

I seem to increasingly see the word Stormfront used instead of words like Nationalism, WN, or even White supremacy these days, as if proving SF was right or wrong would solve all the worlds ills.

[Galdr]

That is exactly what I feel is so unfair and enraging about this "non-racist Nationalism."

Canada is not an entho-Nationalist state, while Nations like Indian and Pakistan certainly are. So in Harjits case he gets to eat one's cake and have it too
while your average White Canadian, American and even White European does not.

He gets an ethno-Nationalism protected from the slur of racism, while a White Canadian is not allowed his ethno-state.

I understand your outrage.

[Galdr]

I fully agree with Harjit, Nationalism is not racist. I am a proud Japanese Nationalist, by the way, but I do not belive that Japan is superior to China, Korea, etc.



Okay then, Holly, where does Harjit belong? Are you forgetting your history? Your country killed thousands of American Indians for your "Manifest Destiny". By the Logic of Racial Nationalism, every single European in the U.S., Canada, etc. should go back to whatever European Nation they came from.

I fully agree with Harjit, Nationalism is not racist. I am a proud Japanese Nationalist, by the way, but I do not belive that Japan is superior to China, Korea, etc.

The word superior in the same sentence with nationalism is a modern defamation tactic of nationalism itself of course with today's universalism and unproductive form of propaganda I wouldn't have you understand such things.

[Galdr]

Who said this?


I meant racial nationalism on the whole, since it is a frequent discussion topic here.

lol, true, there was no need to bring SF into it.

Racial characteristics have often been a aesthetic of cultures since the creation of civilization and so has ardent forms of passion in culture of any society which constitutes nationalism itself.

They are one in the same no matter how many times you keep denying it.

[Galdr]

I always viewed nationalism to be a good thing, a good word, until I encountered the racist and xenophobic lunacy at places like Stormfront.

It is time to take back that word.


In Canada, being nationalistic or patriotic generally implies being fairly liberal and anti-American. It has absolutely no bearing on race. Such Canadians typically find racism abhorrent (in fact racism is one of the reasons they want to distance themselves from the U.S.)


Canadian Francophone nationalism, or Quebec separatism, too has nothing to do with racism. The separatist parties seem more than happy to bring in Francophones from the Middle East and Haiti to bolster there numbers and strength. Even if we opposed it, we grew up in the 1970s and 1980s perceiving it as a benign left-wing liberal movement (sort of like the way we perceived communism, well-intentioned but a bad idea), not an evil mean-spirited right-wing bigoted one.


Indian nationalism generally implies anti-imperialism and anti-racism (this is as opposed to Hindu nationalism, which tends to be prejudiced against Muslims and Sikhs). Such people tend to consider themselves friendly with liberals all around the world, and would have no issues with non-exploitative Westerners living in India, or hippies in Goa. If anything they would probably be quite eager to meet such people for dinner and discussions.


In Japan, nationalism means taking more pride in the nation. We are talking about a country where the very flag and national anthem are viewed as politically incorrect because they may offend the Chinese and Koreans (who still gripe about WWII). I am always amazed at the lack of patriotism in the Japanese. So any journalist or politician who promotes even a normal level of patriotism is described as a nationalist.

In that sense the current Japanese Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, is a renowned nationalist. When he assumed power the racists over at the Phora were joyous, but they misunderstand what nationalism means. They seem to think it is their own brand of bigotry. In fact Abe is very far from that. I finally found some English excerpts from his book "Toward a Beautiful Nation" (Utsukushii Kuni e), at a Morgan Stanley research site of all places.

(He is also known in Japan for being an Indophile, which also gets touched upon).



http://www.morganstanley.com/views/gef/archive/2006/20060809-Wed.html

Anyway, the upshot of this is that we need to restore "nationalism" to its original meaning without the racist aspect.

Today's geographical nationalism that includes all people by the extension of modern multicultural thought is fairly new but at the same time has no bearing on the original form of nationalism that was around in the past.

Sorry you lose this arguement.

( Geographical nationalism implies a form of nationalism where people are associated with a nation by geographical location alone.

Example: A ethnic Chinese person who is mongoloid in race is considered German by just being born into Germany on the lines of geographical location only.)

( How ridiculous does that sound? Actually ludicrous would be a more proper word for it.)